Toronto, you nailed it! LOGIC is thrown out the window of the limousine like panties on prom night IF there are some goofy 300 year old precendents (monkey see, monkey do… been doing it that way so it must be right)! Now let’s address the legislative angle. How much does it cost these days to get a law passed. You pay lobbying firm. They pay 26 congressmen and 13 senators… voila! Now I can buy my whiskey at the drive-in liquor store on Sunday morning.
Joey - You crack me up. You’re smart and enjoy letting people know. Respect…seriously.
Don’t forget the legal concept of “spirit of the law” (as opposed to “letter of the law”), which judges use when they just don’t want to follow the logic
torontosimpleguy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Law (really in common law countries) is based on > three principals – logic, legislature and > precedents. > > Actually I lost my car collision case since some > precedents treated such collision as my fault > though logic based on legislature treated it as > the other party’s fault (OK based on my > understanding anyway). > > So, it’s not a pure logic. And precedents take > over the logic anyway unless you don’t want to > argue your case up to a Supreme Court. Which can’t really be done without a constitutional issue in the US (don’t know about Canada) and you have to be very rich or have free legal help.
It’s been a healthy debate. I think we’ve all learned something from this thread. I really feel sorry that you lawyers paid all that money to go to law school but you might as well cut your losses… study hard, take the cfa exams and get an honest job.
So CFAHooker, uh, have you been sued before?
That stupid lawyer charged me by-the-minute. He talked so tough. My business partner, a musician who didn’t even graduate from college, was sitting at home watching Mtv. He came up with the solution to the lawsuit. It instantly went away. My partner’s explanation was undeniable, logical, suscinct, perfect. The lawyers were writing letters of pure bs that were escalating the thing to obscene proportions. They get paid to write letters of pure bs. They feed on your fear. When you get a letter from a lawyer, you friggin’ have to hire another lawyer to translate it for you!? That lawyer scares you then in the same damn sentence asks for a retainer fee! That’s why i’m saying their business will grow as more dumb bunnies go to 3rd rate law schools… it’s self-perpetuating. If you can’t do math and you can’t do med school… that leaves you with 1 option: LAW I just read on the cover of the ny times that residential real estate agents are all quitting now because housing turns have dropped substantially… you know what that means: MORE LAWYERS. Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh!
Anecdotally, my father was an undergrad math major (he took every single math class offered), and is also a lawyer (mostly he just golfs now, though). He is the most logical man I have ever met, and is also the smartest man I have ever met (caveat - I was adopted…). He logically made the assumption that because he was good at the study of the logical science of mathematics, he would make an excellent lawyer because law is based on logic. But, alas, he holds no CFA, and doesn’t work in finance, although he has set up mutliple state pension plans, but I digress.
their business will grow as more dumb bunnies go to 3rd rate law schools HAHAHAHA! Absolutely hilarious!
whoever said all lawyers are dumb is wrong whoever said that being a good lawyer translates into being a good mathematician is also wrong
virginCFAhooker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When you get a letter from a lawyer, you friggin’ have > to hire another lawyer to translate it for you!? Yes, you’re absolutely right. You HAVE to go to different lawyer to get another opinion. Otherwise you’re just a stupid guy if you trust one lawyer
virginCFAhooker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Propanal… I call BS. Law has nothing to do with > logic & math. NOTHING! It has more to do with > squabbling, greed and a little history. > > You sound just like a lawyer…“um… let’s > consult a dictionary to get the specific meaning > of a word that everybody knows.” My lawyer says > stuff like that when he’s losing his arguement. > Play the words when all else fails. > > Then you quote a “fun fact” that’s about as much > as a fact as my current post. Hey, I have a fun > fact for you! It is a FACT that “generally” in > some circumstances, lawyers are full of Bs most of > the time. That’s just like your fun fact! No > need to post a link to any real statistical study > that compares the math portion of SAT scores of > successful lawyers vs. successful financiers. > Why? Because it’s a “fun fact”! I pulled it out > of the air. > > I’ve never heard of Halmos but I love statistical > studies of math & language rapped in somebody’s > autobiography. I’m very excited… got my weekend > reading set. I Love stuff like that! (not) One, learn to spell, or at least copy, accurately, especially when it concerns namesake. Two, you don’t know enough law to talk about what it is or what it is not. I suggest you examine yourself epistemologically: you seem to have over-estimated the amount of knowledge you think you have. Three, as always, it is a waste of time reasoning with bigots. Four, Don’t waste your time on Halmos, or law. You’ll probably not understand either. Better to stick to the CFA: it is more rudimentary. Torontosimpleguy, precedents do not take over logic: precedents are manifestation of logic extended over time : each precedent is supported by a logical rationale, and a long series of precedents on any settled point at law establishes the veracity of the logic inherent, or at least its relatively immutability over time. And that is only for easy cases. When it comes to the hard cases (assuming you have a good understanding of jurisprudence), logic is the predominant tool of argument. In the supreme court, it is the logic inherent in the precedents, which you are trying to deviate from, that you question. And you win by proposing a new logical trend that appeals to the judges. Joey, It is good, if surprising, to see that you actually have a few admirers in this forum, considering how you started. And I see that old habits really don’t go away; they simply manifest in other ways. Still has the inclination to associate yourself with the ego-boosting elements, like the phd, countless awards, and of course now the aura, ostensible perhaps, of studying under Halmos. I haven’t had the honour to meet Halmos in person, but I did learn a lot of math from his books. Also, I don’t reckon you are more than 50 years old, and if you were indeed under his tutelage in your undergrad or grad days, then that must surely be in the period after 1977, when Halmos was teaching in University of Hawaii and Indiana University. The trip to Duke must have been hell of a long drive.
Leave it to a lawyer to first criticize the interpretation of a “standard definition” then criticize spelling of someone on a chatroom … then drop some big, 3+ syllable words and make me feel like a stupid bigot. Meanwhile, won’t justify the “fun fact” with any hard evidence. Can’t you call a client and scare them into a new intellectual property structure that provides better legal protection from 3rd rate ambulance chasing lawyers that the local community college is puking out by the boatload? Why don’t you slap a frivolous lawsuit on some cheap microcap so the stock price collapses. Buy the stock. Settle the lawsuit. Rinse & Repeat.
propanol Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Torontosimpleguy, > > precedents do not take over logic: precedents are > manifestation of logic extended over time : each > precedent is supported by a logical rationale, and > a long series of precedents on any settled point > at law establishes the veracity of the logic > inherent, or at least its relatively immutability > over time. And that is only for easy cases. When > it comes to the hard cases (assuming you have a > good understanding of jurisprudence), logic is the > predominant tool of argument. In the supreme > court, it is the logic inherent in the precedents, > which you are trying to deviate from, that you > question. And you win by proposing a new logical > trend that appeals to the judges. 1. Past logic may not apply to future circumstances. 2. It’s harder for a regular judge to overturn the precedent than just to follow it. 3. Each new legal round is very expensive. 4. There is a corporative solidarity in legal profession. So it’s statistically more probable that judge will follow his predecessors than to deliver another judgment.
lawyers are there to make sure that the system functions according to those who make the rules. theoretically, They’re not really any different then police officers. after all, when do people hire lawyers? when they get into trouble or to avoid conflict. only difference is though, lawyers have to tackle with ever changing “logic” and be able to present their arguments in a succinct manner. i like to think of lawyers as intellectual mobsters.
I appreciate where you are coming from. I’m arguing from the substantive aspect of law and you, from a realist perspective. It would be an interesting discussion, but I don’t think this is the right forum. Anyway, this is about as much time as I am willing to spend on this forum every now and then. Signing out.
propanol Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I appreciate where you are coming from. I’m > arguing from the substantive aspect of law and > you, from a realist perspective. > > It would be an interesting discussion, but I don’t > think this is the right forum. > > Anyway, this is about as much time as I am willing > to spend on this forum every now and then. > > Signing out. Just say that you lost … since even a theoretical law (and not only a real law) is system with memory (and not a Markov chain)
“signing out” = there goes an ambulance. Gotta run.
propanol, i liked the way you handed a new hole to JDV. please reintroduce yourself but without all the big words…i’m rudimentary level…
Frank, what you’re asking is impossible. Take away the big words and there is nothing left. True with ALL lawyers.